Pandemic

Colleges Use Omicron as Justification for Shutdowns and Surveillance

Even on campuses where the student body is 99 percent vaccinated, college administrators are bending to COVID-19 hysteria.

|

Between December 7 and 13, Cornell University reported 903 COVID-19 cases, many of which were of the omicron variant, among students. CNN breathlessly reported the case count in a headline days later.

As of January 3, 97 percent of on-campus staff members are vaccinated. Undergraduate students are 99 percent vaccinated, while 100 percent of faculty are vaccinated. (The total on-campus percentage is brought down by the "other employees" category, which is 93 percent vaccinated.)

Despite the extraordinarily low risk of deaths and hospitalizations, the school still shut down its campus in mid-December, canceling all activities and sports while moving final exams online. The winter graduation ceremony was canceled; students were encouraged to switch to grab-and-go options in the dining hall; and ironically, given that it's increasingly permissible to point out that healthy weights are linked to better COVID-19 outcomes, all on-campus gyms were shuttered. The first two weeks of instruction for the spring semester have been moved to remote. Cornell did not respond to Reason's request for comment as to how many of these cases have resulted in severe illness, hospitalizations, or deaths.

It's a similar story at Yale University, which also did not respond to request for comment. There, 99.7 percent of undergraduate students are vaccinated (93.9 percent of staff are vaccinated, mirroring Cornell's data). Due to omicron, the start of the term has been pushed back to January 25, with in-person teaching finally beginning on February 7. Students must receive booster shots by January 18, adding to the existing vaccine mandate. Students must quarantine in their dorms following a COVID-19 test taken upon arrival, released only to grab food. They are barred from frequenting businesses in surrounding New Haven, even if eating outdoors—the only exception carved out is for curbside takeout.

Stanford University shifted classes to remote instruction for the first two weeks of the term, canceling all indoor in-person events until January 28. The University of Chicago has also made classes remote for the first two weeks of the semester. George Washington University will be virtual-only until January 18. Seven campuses within the University of California system have altered spring semester plans due to omicron, shifting to remote learning for the first few weeks. "The start of 2022 at the University of California feels like March 2020 deja vu for some students," writes the Los Angeles Times' Colleen Shalby.

But it shouldn't. In March 2020, we had a much harder time assessing the threat posed by COVID-19 to college kids. We didn't have widespread access to vaccines and, increasingly, antivirals. We didn't have good (pre-vaccination) data on severity for different age groups, understanding that the risk of death to people ages 50–64 is 25 times higher than for those ages 18–29; for those ages 65–74, 65 times higher; and for those ages 75–84, a staggering 150 times higher. 

These advances, coupled with the fact that omicron results in less severe illness than prior variants, apparently have very little bearing on how university administrators are responding to this latest surge. Their decision to shut down campuses "reflects an outmoded level of caution," writes Emily Oster in The Atlantic, as well as "a failure of universities to protect their students' interests."

"Now that we have vaccines, campus restrictions have taken on an increasingly absurd character — ruining the college experience in a (failed) attempt to control a virus that poses minimal risk to students," writes Cornell student Matthew Samilow at National Review. "The claim that these restrictions work is designed to be unfalsifiable: If cases are low, the administration says it's because the restrictions are working; if cases are high, they say it's because students aren't following the restrictions enough. Either way, the question of whether the restrictions actually work is never answered."

Other students share Samilow's frustrations. Roy Matthews, who graduated from Maine's Bates College a few months ago, tells Reason, "I was so ready to leave," calling the required daily nasal-swab tests a "riveting good time." (If you missed three in a row, he says, you'd be swiftly kicked off campus.)

"It's turned into a complete clusterfuck…it's not the same school it was two years ago, or even three years ago. There's no plan to phase [COVID-19 restrictions] out or reduce the price tag because they're not having in-person classes," he says, noting that current students have had restrictions ratcheted up due to omicron's surge.

Travis Nix, a student at Georgetown Law who has had three out of four semesters so far conducted entirely online, says the school has failed to indicate when mask requirements will be removed. "We're having all these restrictions to give the appearance of safety…but there's very little safety risk with omicron when you have a student body that is 100 percent vaccinated essentially." Many schools, including each one mentioned in this piece, have vaccine mandates in place for students, with many of them adding booster requirements, and some forcing students to get tested on a regular basis.

Meanwhile, NBC News has invited experts on to talk about why would-be college applicants have, over the past year, "dropped [college] from their radar," with few considering that people's decision making may be affected by the terms of the deal changing. When all you get for your tuition is a glorified Khan Academy seminar paired with cyclical house arrest and intrusive testing regimes, why bother?

In perhaps the most tedious twist of all, pro-union organizers at Bates are alleging that anti-union elements have recently violated the school's COVID-19 protocol by bringing an outside consultant into school buildings, showing yet another example of pandemic concerns being wielded to get favorable political outcomes—a strategy perfected in big cities like Chicago and New York over the last two years by America's most illustrious teachers unions.

But it doesn't all have to be this way. In many places, it's not.

"Maybe the best feature of this year's edition is that I won't have to say too much about viruses, testing and tracing, quarantine space, or vaccination rates," wrote Purdue University President Mitch Daniels on January 5.

"With vaccination rates, achieved through personal choice rather than a 'mandate,' infections have been a fraction of last year's. Most important, we have seen virtually no severe cases, with almost none rising above Level 4 on the 6-level Severity Index we devised in 2020." Of the campus population, 88 percent have submitted proof of vaccination to the university, without a mandate compelling them to do so. The school's case severity levels "are based on several factors; primarily, what symptoms the patient is exhibiting (if any) and whether they have any comorbidities," notes Purdue's COVID-19 dashboard. Other schools (or news outlets like CNN) could choose to collect and publish similar data, to help students, parents, and staff discern whether cases are presenting in the real world as serious threats that warrant such restrictive measures, but few have made such data publicly available or provided it upon request.

Colleges clearly aren't bubbles, but parts of a larger ecosystem. Many people in favor of restrictive omicron-related policies have pointed to the fact that many faculty members are elderly and in need of heightened protection, or that the rate of spread on a college campus affects people who live in and service college towns—bar and restaurant workers, landlords, repairmen.

But college administrators at elite universities seem to be managing toward exceptions, not rules. They seem to be keeping liability and PR in mind, with little eye toward giving their paying customers the once-in-a-lifetime quality experience they advertised. On campuses where vast swaths of the total population are fully vaccinated and where omicron poses little risk of severe illness or death, hypercautious administrators are denying students the intellectual and social environment they came for, asking them to be compliant hermits once again in pursuit of a COVID Zero that may never come.

NEXT: Mandatory GMO Disclosure Doesn't Sway Shopping Habits (But Will Drive Up Costs)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. [Authorities] Use [Wuflu] as Justification for [Overreach]

    You don't say.

    1. They dont exist for Education.

      They exist to teach Conformity.

      I went to a Clown College, Rhodes, OH.

      Blew thru a 2 yr degree with honors. Didnt try.

      The Goal? Educated Grads to the Job Market?

      Nay. Partiallly educated Advanced Button Pushung Machine Operators intended to work for PnG.

      1. Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ... Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ... Mᴀᴋᴇ $90 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $12920 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋS ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ... Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ,go to tech tab for work detail,..........

        Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP NOW

  2. College administrators are almost all from the liberal arts or one of the 'soft sciences' like sociology or psychology. They are adept at knowing what to say to keep up with the students and younger teachers and have the sort of belief in Science that a medieval peasant had in the church. The peasant couldn't read, the Bibles were in Latin anyway, but belief was total.
    All of these people get their information from each other and have unquestioning belief that they are in the right on every question because they all agree on almost everything. It helps that the media come from the same mold, so the beliefs are reinforced.
    Expect only stupidity from this group. There are few people more stupid than a college administrator.

    1. Students need to stop being such epic pussies and sue for tuition and demanding charges similar to what online-only universities offer since that is all they are getting.

      The schools are changing the agreement unilaterally. Fuck them royally for it.

      1. I'm kind of amazed that so many are putting up with this shit. Why bother? Just take a year off from school and hope it's less idiotic next year. Or better yet, learn a trade and do something useful.

        1. I'm kind of amazed that so many are putting up with this shit. Why bother?

          Mainly because college is still largely a grand fuck-off time for delayed adolescence, regardless of whether you're in class or not. You have just enough restrictions that you have to stay disciplined and on a schedule to succeed ("Hurr I'm so grown up, mature, and intellectual now!"), but not so many that you can't go out on the weekends and party your ass off ("Hurr dude I'm so wasted!").

          The last thing a lot of these chumps want to do is get a full-time job and not have the "oh, I have to limit my hours, I'm going to class" excuse to work a part-time schedule, or in some cases, not work at all because their parents are covering all the bills.

          1. Yeah. but they aren't even getting their grand fuck-off time. I get that a lot go to college to continue high school with fewer restrictions, but it sounds pretty dreadful now.

            1. Yeah. but they aren't even getting their grand fuck-off time.

              Look how many teachers are posting shit from restaurants and the like, despite supposedly being terrified right now of catching the coof from kids who rarely get it.

              I guarantee you that a lot of these college kids are still doing their fuck-off stuff, just not on campus.

  3. very interesting, good job and thanks Bhagwaniage for sharing such a good blog.

  4. How has this bubble not burst yet.

    1. Massive public subsidies?

      1. Each school apparently got 1 million in subsidy funding and they continue to say it is unsafe.

  5. On my computer I have a spreadsheet from last year "OG" corona showing nearly 100,000 college "cases" resulting in 3 hospitalizations.

    3 hospitalizations is a weak frat party weekend.

    And Omi is even less dangerous.

    1. If you're young and healthy, the effects of COVID-19 infection are mild to negligible. No one disputes this. However that does NOT mean the young and healthy don't transmit the disease to those who aren't!

      Typhoid Mary did not show the symptoms of your Typhoid infection either. She never got sick. Yet she still managed to kill off a lot of people.

      Just because you feel safe, that does not mean all your friends and family are safe. For their sake, get vaccinated.

      1. For their sake, get vaccinated.

        So, the young and healthy do not need the vaccine because ... well, because they are young and healthy. And, also, the vaccine does not prevent transmission to the old and frail.

        So, if you use your brain, and put two and two together, how the fuck do you justify suggesting that the young and healthy get vaccinated?

        Isn't the solution for the old and frail to get vaccinated?

        Take your time.

        1. the vaccine does not prevent transmission to the old and frail.

          The vaccine *reduces* transmission. Knock it off with the stupid black/white thinking. That the vaccine doesn't stop 100% of transmission does not mean that it doesn't stop any transmission at all.

          1. neither is it 100% safe and effective so the get vaxxed is of the black and white thinking...

            1. The burden of proof is on those who say the vaccine is harmful, not the other way around.

              And those crazy numbers saying tens of thousands of people died from the vaccine are as accurate as the COVID death numbers. In that they're not accurate at all. A corpse that tests positive, regardless of the cause of death, is counted as a COVID death. Likewise a person who dies after having the vaccine, regardless of the cause of the cause of death, is counted as a vaccine death.

              Don't believe the bullshit.

              1. The burden of proof is on the people saying the vaccine is safe and effective, and then forcing people to get it, you miserable statist fuck.

              2. "The burden of proof is on those who say the vaccine is harmful, not the other way around."

                WTF are you smoking, Sarc? The burden of proof is on you to show that I am going to infect you if I am unvaccinated and will not infect you if I am vaccinated.

                It is a burden of proof that you cannot meet, so arguing that I have some sort of moral obligation to reduce some risk by some amount just because it isn't harmful is ABSURD.

                If I argued to you that you have a moral obligation not to drink because it reduces the likelihood that you kill someone in a drunk driving accident, you'd think I was crazy. And if I responded, "the burden of proof is on you to prove that abstaining is harmful" you'd tell me to fuck off.

                1. You're moving the goalposts while flogging a strawman.

                  The vaccine lessens the duration and severity of an infection. You're moving the goalposts by claiming it must be 100% effective to be considered a vaccine, while claiming that vaccine proponents are saying it's 100% effective. Why don't you argue about the actual vaccine and what people are actually saying about it.

                  1. "You're moving the goalposts by claiming it must be 100% effective to be considered a vaccine"

                    No I am not. I never once said it isn't a vaccine, so the strawman is yours.

                    Let's back up here: The argument you responded to was saying that the Vaccine is not 100% effective nor is it 100% safe.

                    That is absolutely true...right? We know there are side effects and we know that there are currently tons of breakthrough cases (I am recovering from one now).

                    You, and Chemjeff, are both the ones making the argument that there is some "moral obligation" to vaccinate. Correct? I mean I assume you are jumping in with Chemjeff because you are supporting his statements.

                    What MT-Man said is that you cannot render it down to "if it reduces risk by some amount it is a moral obligation." He is saying THAT is black and white thinking. And he is right. If something reduces risk to you by 2% but increases risk to me by 5% am I morally obligated? If it reduces risk to you by 10% and increases risk to me by .01%? Why? What moral math is determining that your 10% reduction in risk suddenly obligates me to take on .01% risk?

                    1. I never once said it isn't a vaccine, so the strawman is yours.

                      That seems to be the predominant attitude, so excuse me.

                      We know there are side effects and we know that there are currently tons of breakthrough cases (I am recovering from one now).

                      All the side effects I've read about were minor and temporary, and breakthrough cases are supposed to be less severe.

                      You, and Chemjeff, are both the ones making the argument that there is some "moral obligation" to vaccinate. Correct?

                      No. I've never said that. I think it's a great idea and I agree with jeff that the people spreading lies are assholes, but if people don't want to get vaccinated well fuck 'em. I really don't care.

                    2. One argument I do not buy into is that the unvaccinated are a threat to those who have gotten the jab. No. Screw anyone who says that. If someone is high risk, say they're in their 70s and have COPD, well it's their fucking responsibility to take precautions against being exposed. It's not difficult.

                    3. Forget it Jake, it's Muted-person-town.

                    4. Key phrase here "that I read about."

                      You haven't read about the thousands of people who died immediately after? Or the tens of thousands with permanent, debilitating injuries?

                      Immunity for the manufacturers, but not for you!

                    5. You haven't read about the thousands of people who died immediately after? Or the tens of thousands with permanent, debilitating injuries?

                      So show us an authoritative reference that demonstrates that thousands of people died BECAUSE OF the vaccine.

                    6. Sarc admits he lied about what others said and then continues to do so elsewhere lol.

                    7. All the side effects I've read about were minor and temporary, and breakthrough cases are supposed to be less severe.

                      Which sources did you read? Because I know of many you've ignored.

                    8. So show us an authoritative reference that demonstrates that thousands of people died BECAUSE OF the vaccine.

                      I linked you the interview transcript that listed the dozens of citations. You dismissed it because the doctor showed up to talk with Rogan.

                    9. "I think it's a great idea and I agree with jeff that the people spreading lies are assholes"

                      Then why did you disagree with MT-Man? He wasn't telling a lie.

                    10. You haven't read about the thousands of people who died immediately after? Or the tens of thousands with permanent, debilitating injuries?

                      I have read that there are people who disingenuously attribute any death after the vaccine as being caused by the vaccine, and any injury after the vaccine as being caused by the vaccine.

                      Those numbers are bullshit just like the COVID death numbers that count every corpse that tests positive as being killed by the virus.

                    11. Then why did you disagree with MT-Man? He wasn't telling a lie.

                      I didn't disagree with him. I said the burden of proof is on him and pointed out that some of the numbers he may have read were bullshit.

                    12. Cite where you read that sarc.

                    13. "So show us an authoritative reference that demonstrates that thousands of people died BECAUSE OF the vaccine."

                      Except that's not what I said. I said the people died immediately after taking the vaccine or had debilitating injuries. Key word "after." Not "because of."

                      I have no idea if they died because of it, but that's what I wish we spent more time trying to find out. It's scary how most of the so called experts have reacted when we ask questions.

                    14. Well I'm pretty sure it's not 900,000 people who have died *because of* the vaccine.

                    15. And Jeff defends sarcs uncited strawman arguments lol.

              3. Likewise a person who dies after having the vaccine, regardless of the cause of the cause of death, is counted as a vaccine death.
                -------
                That is pure 100% bullshit.

                1. No it's not. Someone recently provided a link that was "proof" that the vaccine has killed like 900,000 people or something. When I dug through it I found that the people creating the numbers admitted exactly what I just said.

                  1. No. You are full of shit. There is a fixed process yo link vaccines to negative effects. It generally requires 48 hours to a week since shot to adverse reaction and the elimination of other causes. It is the opposite of the with covid standard you lying shit weasel.

                    The estimated number is about 12000 reported in VAERS with a 4 times multiplier based on report percent estimates putting the number estimated at 50k. 200k is the total adverse reactions not just death.

                    You fucking lie about everything.

                    Funny how you demand shit above but feel free to posit uncited bullshit non stop.

                    My numbers are from the Rogan interview with Dr MCcullugh by the way, whose transcript I've linked prior.

                  2. And it is true that the VAERs data includes people who "died after getting the vaccine". No causality is included. And in fact, the CDC has specifically asked that healthcare providers report deaths after the vaccine, which would lead to over reporting.

              4. Sarc requires burden of proof evidence for claims and then makes a bald assertion of his own to refute it. He doesn't even understand the process used to report problems with the vaccine.

                1. In his mind, the starting assumption is that the vaccines are safe and effective absent evidence to the contrary, but he cannot for the life of him explain why that should be the starting assumption.

                  In other words, he does not understand the concept of the burden of proof. He literally thinks it only applies to the person that first makes an affirmative claim, rather than to the person operating under the originating assumption (which, naturally, he never questions).

          2. "The vaccine *reduces* transmission."

            Can you quantify this for me? Because the only studies I have seen are very narrow in their results.

            Just as an example of what I mean, consider that in very narrow studies, Football helmets reduce concussions compared to not wearing a helmet. And yet, after the introduction of football helmets, concussions increased in the NFL. Why? Because helmets actually led to people feeling safer and engaging in more of the behaviors that ultimately risk concussions.

            All that said, beyond the data, we now have a very interesting moral question. We went from "you are obligated to vaccinate in order to protect me from a virus" to now "you are obligated to vaccinate in order to reduce the risk to me from a virus."

            Where is the moral line here? It is no longer protection, it is some fuzzy line of obligation. If I can show you that some action will reduce risk to others from a natural pathogen by .0000000000001% does that mean there is now a moral obligation?

            1. The vaccine lessens the duration and severity of the illness. This means that the window where a vaccinated person is contagious is smaller than that for an unvaccinated person.

              1. "The vaccine lessens the duration and severity of the illness."

                In most cases, this is true.

                "This means that the window where a vaccinated person is contagious is smaller than that for an unvaccinated person.'

                That doesn't mean it reduces the chances of spread. Right? You understand that?

                Example 1: Unvaccinated Person gets a headache and fever for 5 days, and self isolates.

                Example 2: Vaccinated Person gets a scratchy throat for two days, and goes about his normal life.

                Which of those people just spread the virus more?

                1. What about unvaccinated people who don't isolate because they're not sniveling progressive pussies? What about vaccinated people who are aware of the facts and isolate if they're sick? I can play the assumption game too.

                  1. Thank you Sarc! Finally we agree.

                    You are absolutely right that your vaccination status does not matter, but rather it is what you do while infected. I have been trying to explain this to you guys for months now, and finally you get it!

                    1. Well you haven't been doing a very good job.

                      And I still disagree that vaccination status does not matter. I don't think that's a productive message to tell people.

                      A better message would be that because the vaccine is not a silver bullet, you should still take precautions if you think you are sick.

                      Saying that vaccination status doesn't matter sends the message that people shouldn't get vaccinated.

                    2. Saying that vaccination status doesn't matter sends the message that people shouldn't get vaccinated.

                      And?

                      Now we all boiled down to messaging, rather than any consideration of whether the vaccine does what it was supposed to do --- namely, (1) prevent transmission and (2) prevent illness.

                      The fact that you are predominantly concerned about messaging demonstrates that the narrative is all you care about protecting.

                    3. "And I still disagree that vaccination status does not matter. I don't think that's a productive message to tell people."

                      But it doesn't matter. Why do you want to message anything to people? If "being infected" is the cause of spreading an infection, then what is the harm in telling the damn truth?

                      "Saying that vaccination status doesn't matter sends the message that people shouldn't get vaccinated."

                      No it doesn't. It is telling the truth. Vaccinate if you want to protect yourself is a very clear and unambiguous message. Lying to people by implying that we can somehow stop the spread if people just get vaccinated is not going to help anything- just divide the country.

                      Out of curiosity, do you do the same with masking? Do you expect everybody to mask up? Because it helps in some small amount, I am sure. Not enough to actually stop the spread of the disease, but it probably slows the spread by some amount. So do you go around telling everyone that they ought to mask up? If not, why not?

                    4. But it doesn't matter. Why do you want to message anything to people?

                      Why are you saying anything to anyone?

                      Lying to people by implying that we can somehow stop the spread if people just get vaccinated is not going to help anything- just divide the country.

                      Once again you're equating less than 100% with zero.

                      Out of curiosity, do you do the same with masking? Do you expect everybody to mask up?

                      I never said I expect everyone to get vaccinated. As far ask masking goes, if someone is sick and can't isolate, a mask isn't a bad idea. Under any other circumstance it does more harm than good.

                      I have never once supported mandates for either, despite what the trolls say.

                    5. You've just attacked every entity who said to get vaccinated but no mandates because you saw them as your enemies lol.

                    6. "Once again you're equating less than 100% with zero."

                      You keep using this phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means.

                      There are many things in life that might as well be 0 if not 100%. A Mars lander was lost because calculations meant it only decelerated for 95% of its decent. Indeed, I think you said you used to work in food services- If you only cook food to a temp and time that kills 50% of the bacteria, you might as well have not killed any- you don't serve it.

                      When we talk about risks of COVID itself- will I get the disease, will I get very sick- I totally agree that any level of risk reduction is nice. But when we are making axiomatic statements like, "vaccinate to protect your loved ones" it is implying a binary choice, not a gradient. Either your loved ones get sick or not. Either being vaccinated stops them from getting sick or not.

                      The ineffectiveness of this vaccine in stopping the spread of the virus (it is still spreading) IS a binary question.

                  2. In the Purdue chart near the end of the article, approximately 80% of their positive cases fell into the 'very mild' to 'asymptomatic' range. This is in a highly vaccinated group of people - 88% minimum based on their figures. That is apparently being carefully monitored as well.

                    Among the general population of the US, what percentage of vaccinated people with extremely minor to no symptoms of covid do you think will be staying home and isolating? How many do you figure even suspect they might be sick?

                    1. So.... it's better for people to not get vaccinated so they'll be so sick that they'll stay home?

                    2. 1. People who are vaccinated are less likely to feel ill.
                      2. People who do not feel ill are less likely to get tested.
                      3. People who have no reason to isolate (i.e. feeling ill, or a positive test) are less likely to isolate.

                      Therefore:
                      IF vaccinated people who do not feel ill are in fact capable of infecting other people, then it does not necessarily seem to be obvious that vaccinated people slow the spread. It might be that they are less contagious and for a shorter duration of time, and that would seem like a good thing for slowing the spread, but if it turns out that they are also more active while contagious and less likely to isolate or social distance, those positive indicators could be negated or worse.

                    3. "So.... it's better for people to not get vaccinated so they'll be so sick that they'll stay home?"

                      You do realize that no one is arguing that, right? No one is saying "it is better for people to get ill".

                      All we are saying is that these claims that Vaccinated people won't spread the disease are wrong. Implications that being vaccinated "protects your loved ones" are wrong. Implications that a a slightly lower transmission rate will stop the spread rather than just delay the inevitable are wrong.

                      We aren't arguing that we would rather people get sick- just arguing that sanctimonious statements like "if you love your family protect them by vaccinating" are logically in conflict with reality. Wrong.

                    4. "So.... it's better for people to not get vaccinated so they'll be so sick that they'll stay home?"

                      Nobody said that.
                      Maybe you should mind your own business instead of obsessing over what other people do with their own lives.

              2. Awesome. But the whole population is going to get exposed regardless of how many people you personally expose. And we've known this for almost two years.

                1. But the whole population is going to get exposed regardless of how many people you personally expose.

                  "Everyone dies anyway, so don't bother wearing a seat belt or a helmet when you drive." Right?

                  1. Now you're catching on.

                    1. I don't recommend nihilism as a guiding philosophy for life. But, you do you.

                    2. We agree. Youre a statist authoritarian.

                    3. And collectivistjeff clearly doesn't understand what nihilism is.
                      Cynicism or fatalism is what you were going for there.

                  2. Yes. Let people determine their own risk posture is the sole libertarian response.

                    You just admitted you want to force people towards your risk profile. A statist position.

                  3. ""Everyone dies anyway, so don't bother wearing a seat belt or a helmet when you drive." Right?"

                    You get that you just switched between taking responsibility for protecting others to taking responsibility for protecting yourself, right?

              3. The vaccine lessens the duration and severity of the illness. This means that the window where a vaccinated person is contagious is smaller than that for an unvaccinated person.

                THIS IS A LIE. It does not make any logical sense. It is emotional propaganda. People who are actually sick quarantine. They have a responsibility to, and based on my experience, they will do so out of necessity. Regardless, they are not at work, in restaurants, or in theaters spreading the illness, whether it lasts 3 days or 3 weeks. When was the last time you heard someone with a hacking cough in public?

                The period of time that a person is contagious before the onset of symptoms is the main factor at play in spreading the virus. Once a person has symptoms, everyone else can see that person is sick and can take their own measures to protect themselves.

                A quick search reminds us that, before the vaccine was available, 80% of cases were asymptomatic. If vaccination has better outcomes, then that number should be even higher among the vaccinated. Asymptomatic means more likely to be out spreading the virus.

                Because the vaccine is not remotely preventative and only mitigates symptoms, vaccination makes it both more likely that a contagious person has the energy to be out spreading the virus and less likely that others can discern who might be sick. And so, it is logical to conclude that the vaccine is actually increasing the number of total cases even as it decreases the number of severe cases.

                If only there was a way to study such phenomena.

                1. "Asymptomatic means more likely to be out spreading the virus"

                  I don't think that's true. I think the appropriate term isn't asymptomatic, but presymptomatic. If you never develop symptoms, how you gonna spread a virus? I assume the powers that be are using the term asymptomatic to continue tricking people into believing everyone in the world is a threat, and to keep cowering in fear, obeying their masters.

              4. How about screw all you guys: It's not a fucking Vaccine. It's a prophylactic with holes in it (or, a face mask), at best. It's NOT A VACCINE.

                You lost the argument when you accepted the premise that whatever that shit people inject themselves with is a "Vaccine."

                Before that, you lost the argument when you accepted the premise that: "Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda, would have done anything to stop a virus.

                You all sound like school children fighting over who gets to slide down the slide first.

            2. Where is the moral line here? It is no longer protection, it is some fuzzy line of obligation.

              Reasonable people can disagree on where the moral line is. But the point is that there IS a line. It is not reasonable to say "there is no line so people are morally free to engage in any behavior they want regardless if it harms others or not", nor is it reasonable to say "people should take every precaution imaginable in order to reduce everyone's risk by microscopic amounts". There is a middle ground.

              1. Given a middle ground, and disagreement on where the line is, I would have expected someone calling himself an individualist to lean in favor of leaving the choice with the individual, rather than ceding it to some state authority.

                1. I do! I am not arguing in favor of some coercive mandate. I am simply making arguments about how each of us ought to consider our own moral obligations in the absence of such coercion.

                  1. There's no fucking moral obligation, you stupid collectivist fuck.

                    1. And this is where we disagree.

                    2. Because collectivistjeff is a collectivist

                  2. And this is where we disagree.

                    Because you are a collectivist, which is exactly the point.

                    1. Damn it.
                      Should've kept scrolling

              2. "but the point is there is a line."

                Except there isn't a line, at least for actual libertarians.

                Try and define a standard of collective responsibility that justifies mandatory vaccination and nothing else. You can't.

                1. I am not trying to justify MANDATORY anything, provided you mean using state coercion to compel behavior.

                  Again I am trying to discuss the moral behavior that we all ought to adopt for ourselves, in the absence of coercion.

                  1. So you supported mandates, provided the state is not dispensing them? So, for example, the neighbors showing up with pitchforks and vaccinating people against their will?

                    1. The parsing of what he says should be a clue to jeff that he is an idiot with inconsistent and unworkable belief systems, but he persists.

                    2. I support people exercising their property rights to decide what conduct is or is not acceptable on their own property, consistent with the NAP.

                      So if an individual insists that only vaccinated people are permitted on his/her own property, I believe that the individual should have the power to enforce that decision if he/she so chooses.

                      I don't support the government mandating for everyone that all must be vaccinated.

                      Hope that helps.

                    3. "So if an individual insists that only vaccinated people are permitted on his/her own property, I believe that the individual should have the power to enforce that decision if he/she so chooses."

                      So it's no longer a question of moral obligation, and you are pro mandate.

                    4. I support people exercising their property rights to decide what conduct is or is not acceptable on their own property, consistent with the NAP.

                      Not what I asked you.

                      My question was:

                      So you supported mandates, provided the state is not dispensing them? So, for example, the neighbors showing up with pitchforks and vaccinating people against their will?

                      Yes or no?

                    5. So you really just want people mandated, but you're afraid of how that plays out so you default to polball lolbertarianism where you call the McDonalds secret police to perform live vivisection on your neighbor because he shoveled your driveway without asking you first and violated the NAP.

                    6. I want people to have an enlightened sense of moral responsibility. Which is a *necessary prerequisite* for any society organized around libertarian principles.

                      I have no idea what "polball lolbertarianism" is.

                    7. And there it is. Jeff wants people to act as to how he sees fit. He is not a libertarian. He believes his moral code is what everyone should follow. He finally let the mask slip.

                      His aims are not for liberty or individual choice. It is to do as he sees fit. Lol.

                    8. I want people to have an enlightened sense of moral responsibility.

                      Collectivists usually do.

                      I hope you never manage to find what you are looking for, because pursuing that dream usually involves putting a lot of people in the ground -- that is, if they don't put you there first.

                    9. Not knowing the most prominent form of political satire for libertarians really says a lot about you.

                  2. So youre trying to coerce people into making the decision without coercion. What?

                    1. He thinks if an unvaccinated person happens to step on your property, you can blow their head off with a rifle -- indeed, it is your moral obligation to do so.

              3. And Jeff takes the mask off and wants government to decide the moral line in regards to individual choice.

              4. But it is a simple line: Am you knowingly causing harm right now or not? Walking around unvaccinated is not causing anyone harm. You could walk around unvaccinated for WEEKS in a retirement home and kiss 95 year old grandmas every minute and you are not exposing anyone to harm. The SECOND you have reason to believe you are infected, that changes. That changes whether you were vaccinated or not. If you kissed granny while Vaccinated and infected, you violated the NAP. It is super simple!

                If I am knowingly infected, I am walking around with a "loaded weapon" to borrow your analogy. I am responsible for any harm that I cause.

                *I am vaccinated*. I was sick with the Wu Flu. I stayed home for the required time. Because going out and talking with people and spreading my Wu Flu is a violation of the NAP. My vaccination status before or after infection had no difference about whether I was causing harm to people.

                See how simple that is? We don't need to determine if my 19.23% reduction in symptoms is more important than the .023% risk I have for side effects. We don't need to measure your age and other risk profiles against my allergy to eggs or religious beliefs. We don't have to wait on scientists to write down long numbers, and we don't have to argue about whose scientist is more scientisty than the other.

                It is morally clear: It is your responsibility to protect yourself from nature. If you come to believe you are infected, it is your responsibility to not engage in behavior likely to pass on the virus.

                1. The fact that vaccines do not prevent transmission destroys the justification for the two-tier society the progressive left has been building over the past two years.

                  Hence all the lefties shitting up the comments as of late, trying to convince people that the vaccines prevent transmission.

                  1. If the vaccines reduced the transmissibility to an extent that the virus could not spread, that would be notable. Indeed, this was exactly the argument being made by Vax-Maxi's in April. "We need everyone vaccinated to END COVID!"

                    Even an 80% effective vaccine might be able to do that, depending on the specifics of the virus it supposedly mitigates.

                    So the key point is whether or not the vaccine reduces transmission enough to stop the spread. And whatever the exact numbers are, the evidence is "No, it does not stop the spread".

      2. Try to stay on topic here. We're talking about the claim that college campuses are uniquely dangerous. If you want to make the claim that the danger is only to decrepit old professors, after two years of this bullshit it's still you still who bear the burden of proof. i.e. that the decrepit old vaccinated mask wearing socially distancing professors still require a full campus shutdown to remain "safe".

      3. Just because you feel safe, that does not mean all your friends and family are safe. For their sake, get vaccinated.

        Perhaps you didn't read the article. Pretty much all of them are. If they're locking them down from each other, who are they saving?

        And remember, if you're blaming the failure of the vaccine on the unvaccinated...

        And also, you need to define "vaccinated". That appears to be a rapidly moving target.

        1. https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1479476960631963655?t=9IW3OX-xG_I8iFcJtlgKiA&s=19

          JUST IN - Germany enacts new Covid restrictions: Double vaccinated no longer allowed to enter cafes/restaurants without taking tests. Tests not required for the "boosted."
          MORE - "The new restriction is intended as an incentive to get boosted," says Franziska Giffey, the Mayor of Berlin, at the federal press conference.

          1. You know who else introduced coercive “incentives” in Berlin?

      4. "Just because you feel safe, that does not mean all your friends and family are safe. For their sake, get vaccinated."

        Except that we have known for at least 5 months now that Vaccination does not keep your friends and family safe from getting infected. Indeed, the evidence is that vaccinated people act more cavalier about doing activities that will infect others if they happen to be infectious. c.f. Bear Weekend Bash in Provincetown back in July.

        If you changed your statement to be, "please for the sake of your family, get vaccinated and always act as if you are infectious" it might be closer to accurate. But instead, you continue to peddle a myth that Vaccination == Not infectious, which is actually contributing to more infections.

        1. But instead, you continue to peddle a myth that Vaccination == Not infectious, which is actually contributing to more infections.

          That's a strawman. Most people promoting vaccinations recognize that it isn't guaranteed to stop transmission or infection. It's supposed to lessen the duration and severity of the infection. And unlike the flu vaccine that's only effective against the three strains that they guess will be predominant, the mRNA vaccines protect against all variants so far. It's limited protection, but it's a lot better than nothing.

            1. Shouldn't you be cleaning your guns in preparation for the revolution?

              1. Such a thin crutch you rely upon

          1. How is it a strawman? Brandy was humping the "get vaxed for the sake of others" angle. The evidence there is weak and certainly not to the point where it should be a substantive bullet point in the list of reasons to be vaxed.

            1. Getting vaccinated does help others because if a vaccinated person gets sick from the virus, they'll fight it off faster than if not. That lessens the time in which they are contagious.

              The strawman is the claim that vaccine supporters say it's a silver bullet that stops infection and transmission. Nobody is claiming that other than men of straw.

              1. "That lessens the time in which they are contagious."

                But they are still contagious and the virus will still spread. There is NO evidence that vaccination reduces the spread of the virus below R=1. That means this argument is moot. It is like looking at a collapsing dam and saying, "well, it will help if I put this one sandbag here."

                The question is not whether vaccination "helps" the public spread. The question is whether or not it "helps enough to matter". And there is no evidence that this is the case. All the evidence is that even in a highly vaccinated population, the virus is still spreading, so the argument that you need to vaccinate for the sake of others is just wrong.

                1. You're basically saying that anything less than 100% is zero. If it ain't perfect it ain't worth doing.

                  1. That is not what he is saying at all, you imbecile.

                  2. What evidence? Population statistics from states with different vaccinations dont show any correlation between rates and infections.

                    This has been pointed out to you so many fucking times.

                  3. "You're basically saying that anything less than 100% is zero."

                    No, I am saying that this specific question is binary: "By vaccinating will I help stop the spread of this disease?" *if* the answer to that question is yes, then *perhaps* a moral case can be made that "we should get vaccinated for the sake of others".

                    But there is no grey area. Will you stop the spread, or not? You cannot "stop" the spread by 25.2% because it will still be spreading. And if it is still spreading, you have not stopped it. This is a simple, logical proposition- no science needed.

                    "If it ain't perfect it ain't worth doing."

                    This is absolutely NOT what I am saying. There are many reasons to get vaccinated. For example, if you are at greater risk from COVID, getting vaccinated is a great fucking idea.

                    What I am saying is that the phrase, "getting vaccinated keeps your loved ones from getting Wu Flu" is NOT TRUE. It won't prevent them from getting the virus because the virus is spreading whether you vaccinate or not. It is spreading in 90%+ vaccinated Israel. It is spreading in cats and deer. It is spreading in vaccinated people. To say that vaccination will protect your family is inaccurate.

                    1. It doesn't matter how many times we explain this to him, he will be right back here tomorrow saying "IF IT'S NOT 100% IT'S WORTHLESS HURR DURR".

                    2. Sarc does not care because attacking people that express skepticism about the vaccine is synonymous, in his mind, with attacking Trump supporters.

                      "Questions about vaccine" = "Trump dick sucker" and he never takes it beyond that.

                    3. For the record, I don't think Sarc thinks I am a Trump Dick Sucker.

                      But I do think he or one of the lefties came up with this "if it is not 100% it must be 0" and thinks it applies to all cases. And it does not. It certainly has merit in the argument about whether or not vaccination protects one's self from the virus. But in this specific case, for this specific argument, it is wrong. Either the vaccination slows transmission enough to stop the spread, or it doesn't stop the spread. "almost" isn't helpful other than the fact that someone might get sick in the NEXT surge instead of this one.

              2. You keep making bald assertions which you decried above. Why?

          2. "That's a strawman. Most people promoting vaccinations recognize that it isn't guaranteed to stop transmission or infection."

            No: I responded directly to what Brandybuck said. Brandybuck never once said "Vaccinations may reduce by some amount..."

            Brandybuck said that people around you are at risk, and that you should get vaccinated for their sake. That is implying that if you vaccinate you won't get people around you sick.

            And I am getting tired of this bait and switch writ large. A year ago it was, "Vaccination will get us to herd immunity". Today it is "Vaccination will reduce the chances of you passing on this illness to others." And the imprecise language of Brandybuck, whether they intended it or not, continues to conflate the urgency of the former, more imperative and easily sold statement with the reality of today.

            We are stuck with this Virus forever. No amount of vaccination is going to stop COVID from infecting people. Arguing that it reduces risk is stupid- everyone is going to get this disease unless they themselves take measures to protect themselves- from vaccination to permanently living in a bubble.

            1. No amount of vaccination is going to stop COVID from infecting people.

              "No amount of seatbelt wearing is going to stop car wrecks from killing people."

              1. If you are driving off a cliff and into the Grand Canyon at 100 mph, a seatbelt is not going to help. Neither will two or three seatbelts. Neither will the fact that your passenger is wearing a seatbelt.

                Hope that helps you understand.

                1. So in your analogy, catching the virus is akin to "driving off a cliff and into the Grand Canyon at 100 mph"? Meaning, an act that will result in almost certain death? Hmm. Somehow that doesn't seem right.

                  1. The vaccines prevent transmission about as much as a seatbelt prevents you from being smashed to a pulp if you were to drive your car into the Grand Canyon.

                    The vaccines prevent transmission about as much as wearing sunblock prevent burns when jumping into a volcano.

                    The vaccines prevent transmission about as much salting prevents the formation of ice in Antarctica.

                    I hope that helps.

                    1. I shit you not, but I have seen arguments that mandatory seat belt laws are to protect other people. Weak arguments about maintaining control. If you have ever been in a serious accident you know this is nonsense.

                    2. Nope, that is absurdly minimizing the effectiveness of the vaccine. It isn't 100%, but it isn't 0% either, not even "basically 0%" either.

                    3. Nope, that is absurdly minimizing the effectiveness of the vaccine. It isn't 100%, but it isn't 0% either, not even "basically 0%" either.

                      Then give us a number. You've repeatedly been asked to provide a number, and you haven't, because you can't.

                    4. Based on all evidence it is far closer to 0 than 100.

                      Seat belts protect the user. Get a vaccine if you think it will protect you. Seat belts never prevented accidents into someone else dummy.

                    5. Then give us a number.

                      THERE IS NO SINGLE NUMBER. The degree of effectiveness depends highly on the conditions. It may be 10%, it may be 90%. It may even be 0% *in certain cases*. But it is not 0% overall, as a general rule. We know this because in part of studies that I cited to you. Such as:

                      Cases of Covid-19 were less common among household members of vaccinated health care workers during the period beginning 14 days after the first dose than during the unvaccinated period before the first dose (event rate per 100 person-years, 9.40 before the first dose and 5.93 beginning 14 days after the first dose).

                      Based on this study, being vaccinated results in a 37% reduction in the chance of spreading the virus. But the study has limits and flaws, like all studies do. Will the number be 37% for you or me or any random person in their daily life? Probably not. Might be higher, might be lower. But it is very likely not 0%.

                      People like you who demand absolutes and definite numerical answers to all of life's questions cannot handle this ambiguity, and so they resort to conspiracy and nihilism even about the project of discovering the truth itself - "they can't give us an answer so they are all lying/truth is undiscoverable/who gives a shit just do whatever and die early". That is not the fault of the CDC or scientists for not giving you numbers that cannot meet your impossible standards, that is the fault of you for not being able to accept this type of ambiguity. You are just going to have to deal with it.

                      Or, continue with your black/white nonsense and completely unscientific argument-by-anecdote tactics. Your call.

                    6. THERE IS NO SINGLE NUMBER. The degree of effectiveness depends highly on the conditions. It may be 10%, it may be 90%.

                      So the answer is "I don't know if vaccines reduce or prevent transmission."

                      But you can't bring yourself to say that, can you? Why not?

                    7. And as overt astutely notes above, any number not 100% means that any effect is delay and not stopping. So how long so you force others to protect others. Their entire life? What if the delay is only 2 weeks? Is that worth the interruption of individual choice on risk assessments? We already know vaccines are not effective at stopping the spread. Yet assholes like jeff want to have people protect him from something that is not stopped.

                    8. "Based on this study, being vaccinated results in a 37% reduction in the chance of spreading the virus."

                      Let's say for the sake of argument, vaccination has reduced the likelihood of transmission by 37%. You think this is significant, but in a society where we meet dozens of people daily, it is nothing special. It is a rounding error because it is a risk over a finite time set. In the case of the study, we are talking about a few days among some number of people in a house, but in reality a person will have many of these opportunities to get the virus.

                      Let's for, the sake of argument, say that when you come in contact with an infected person you have a 20% chance of catching the bug. If you are both vaccinated, we reduce that by 37% to 12.6%.

                      Based on those numbers, an Unvaccinated person will need to be around 5 unvaccinated, infected people to get infected. If Everyone is vaccinated, we have merely reduced that to 8 encounters before we are likely infected.

                      When a vaccination can reduce this spread below R=1 it dies off and is eradicated. But we know that isn't the case because Omicron is running like wildfire through even vaccinated populations. We can argue whether it is faster or slower, but what is UNDENIABLE is that COVID is reproducing faster than vaccination slows it- even in heavily vaccinated populations.

                      So it is a fact that vaccination isn't going to "protect your family" from getting the virus. It may "extend the amount of time before they finally get it" but it isn't protecting them from getting the disease. That isn't "black or white thinking" it is just a logical fact, proven by the maths.

              2. Did seat belts reduce the number of car accidents jeff?

            2. Has the flu vax stopped the flu?

      5. Just because you feel safe, that does not mean all your friends and family are safe.

        Same thing right back at you. Just because you feel safer because you have had the vaccine doesn't mean you won't infect anyone. Vaccination likely gives people a false sense of security. You have to consider behavior as well as the drug's effect. If a person is so compromised that they need to worry about being around asymptomatic unvaccinated people, then they also need to worry about asymptomatic vaccinated people. The difference in risk isn't all that big (and is very small in either case). If you have zero tolerance for risk of infection, then you can't count on vaccines or masks or any of it.

  6. So all the universities are clearly saying vaccines don't work?
    Imagine that.

    1. Pay attention to what they do vs what they say.

      The people who screech "get vaccinated" clearly don't believe it's effective based on what they do. Yet they keep saying it's "effective".

  7. Granted, my circle of friends all tend to have various forms of OCD, from one outright clean freak, to another who is joyful that he no longer has to interact with people. But as a group, their level of panic over COVID-19 has not diminished on a bit.

    The Omicron variant is more infectious, but much less severe. The cause seemingly being that its' focused on infecting the upper respiratory tract rather than attacking the whole body as classic and Delta like to do. So you end up with cases of "flurona". Doesn't mean its' not serious, but for the vaccinated who can still contract it, the severity is pretty damned mild all things considered. (The unvaccinated, especially the elderly and those with conditions, are not so safe. Hospitalizations and deaths are still nearly all the unvaccinated).

    But yet Omicron has my circle of friends just as freaked out as Delta or the original. The case numbers is all they see, and when I point them to the lack of hospitalization and ICU upticks, they always respond that it lags behind case numbers. Which is true, but it doesn't lag behind by this long. Places like England are are seeing a decline in Omicron while their death numbers stayed plateaued.

    A friend (outside the circle) and his family caught Omicron just before Christmas. He went back to work as scheduled this week. Of course he's fully vaccinated including booster. In his words, "it was like a mild to moderate cold".

    So please stop with the panic! If you're fully vaccinated you're far far less likely to catch it, and if you do, the symptoms for the vaccinated are fairly mild. There is literally no need for yet another lockdown.

    If you're unvaccinated, stop being stupid. You may feel that you yourself are safe, and maybe you are, but you can still transmit it to others. That's how diseases work. They transmit to other people. I'm not saying we need a mandate, I'm saying don't impose your risk on other people. This anti-vaxx nonsense needs to stop. The joke has gone on too long.

    1. If you're unvaccinated, stop being stupid. You may feel that you yourself are safe, and maybe you are, but you can still transmit it to others.

      Vaccines do not stop transmission, dumbass.

      1. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2106757

        Cases of Covid-19 were less common among household members of vaccinated health care workers during the period beginning 14 days after the first dose than during the unvaccinated period before the first dose (event rate per 100 person-years, 9.40 before the first dose and 5.93 beginning 14 days after the first dose). After the health care worker’s second dose, the rate in household members was lower still (2.98 cases per 100 person-years).

        Meaning, vaccinated people had a lower chance of spreading the virus to their immediate family, than unvaccinated people did.

        1. But apparently anti-vaxxers don't even care about their own families. I just don't understand that level of psychopathy.

          1. We're talking about the same people who still believe Trump won the election. For them a lack of evidence is proof. You know, like when you don't say something it's proof of what you really mean. It's not psychopathy. It's illogic and stupidity.

            1. Given that vaccination reduces asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2,2,3 it is plausible that vaccination reduces transmission; however, data from clinical trials and observational studies are lacking.

              And, yet, for you and Jeff the above statement is proof positive that vaccines reduce transmission.

              Funny, ain't it?

            2. Yeah, we really aren't. Sure, there is a lot of overlap with the Trump enthusiasts. But there are plenty of people with no love for Trump who also question the vaccines.

              1. I wonder how much opposition to the vaccine began with opposition to mandates and turned into fuck you I'm not gonna do it simply because someone told me to.

                1. Ask all the democrats about the Trump vaccine they said they wouldn't take shit weasel.

                2. Honestly, that's pretty much where I'm at.

                  I can understand it, and won't criticize anyone for their choice, but I'm kind of disappointed how many people are getting the vaccine for convenience sake, so they can have the card to show places that require vaccination. What we really need is for a lot of vaccinated people to refuse to disclose whether they are or not. Don't ask don't tell.

                  1. DEG was in a rare position in that he's really good at what he does and has some fuck-you money. So he could switch jobs easily. Most people can't do that. So when faced with a choice between getting vaccinated or looking for an employer that isn't legally obligated to fire people who aren't, they get the jab.

                    It's difficult to stand up for principle when the alternative is unemployment.

                    1. Yeah, true. And that really sucks. When they have everyone over a barrel, it's hard to convince people that it's worth standing up for principle. But if people don't we just keep losing more and more.

                      I've never looked for a job so I don't know how easy it would be to find another job. Probably not too bad. I am also quite good at what I do. And I often think of moving to some kind of self-employment too. I hope it doesn't come to that because of this.

        2. Vaccines do not stop transmission. End of story.

        3. it is plausible that vaccination reduces transmission; however, data from clinical trials and observational studies are lacking.4,5 We provide empirical evidence suggesting that vaccination may reduce transmission by showing that vaccination of health care workers is associated with a decrease in documented cases

          You do have a theory and I'd agree with those assumptions naturally - but does it account for non reported since they thought they couldn't catch it for a large amount of that studies time? Does it account for behavioral patterns? I'd need to know if vaxxed are more isolated in contact in general (i.e. more concern about the virus). It also does say the studies are lacking so taking that as gospel seems a bit suspect.

        4. Given that vaccination reduces asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2,2,3 it is plausible that vaccination reduces transmission; however, data from clinical trials and observational studies are lacking.

          Jeff does not read the links he posts, and he hopes other people don't read them either.

          But they do.

          And when they do, the links demonstrate that Jeff is full of shit -- something we all already knew, but thanks for the confirmation.

        5. 903 cases in one week out of a 25000 student body that is 99% vaccinated. That is a pretty low efficency.

          1. Um, yea, but if it wasn't for the vaccine, they'd all be dead, so ...

        6. 14 days. Lol. Now look at country data vaccination rates and find the correlation to infection rates.

    2. My vaccinated wife caught it in early Dec. Almost certainly Omicron. Light flu symptoms for 18 hours or so. A slight fever and cough.

      She passed it to my unvaccinated 10 year old. Light cold symptoms for about 12 hours. A fever that barely registers as a fever. No cough. Drove us crazy for 10 days because of cabin fever and overall rambunctiousness.

      1. Similar...not sure who started it, likely me (2 vax) who gave it to my boosted (3 vax) wife and daughter (2 vax). Took me a day to get past it. Took them both about three. And now because the State of NH is too chicken to follow the new more reasonable CDC guidelines, everyone gets to stay home another week.

    3. The Omicron variant is more infectious, but much less severe.

      Which, by the way is exactly what one (now banned from Twitter and Linkedin) top level researcher said would happen. It would mutate into a more infectious, but less serious disease.

      Doesn't mean its' not serious, but for the vaccinated who can still contract it, the severity is pretty damned mild all things considered. (The unvaccinated, especially the elderly and those with conditions, are not so safe. Hospitalizations and deaths are still nearly all the unvaccinated).

      Again, many of these are covid adjacencies. When CNN announced the first Omicron death a week ago or so, it turned out their entire report was a lie. The person who died did not die FROM COVID but died while positive with covid.

      If you're unvaccinated, stop being stupid. You may feel that you yourself are safe, and maybe you are, but you can still transmit it to others. That's how diseases work. They transmit to other people.

      As can the fully vaccinated. Our entire policy has been a failure, justified by massive accounting fraud. The question is "when can we return to normal". The answer should have been "mid 2020".

      And this isn't a "vaccine", it's a "therapeutic".

      1. The person who died did not die FROM COVID but died while positive with covid.

        All covid deaths are counted that way. I'm sure that for some the virus was the actual cause of death, but I have a difficult time believing it's more than a small percentage.

        1. If 10% of your population has a virus you expect 10% of your deaths to be positive even if it had nothing to do with what killed them.

          1. "If 10% of your population has a virus you expect 10% of your deaths to be positive'

            Yes but we absolutely know that there has been a spike in deaths of SOME sort for the last two years:

            https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

            You can look on that graph and see a bad flu season in 2018, when there was a small spike in deaths. And you can see the huge spike over the last few years.

            Now, I am sure some of those excess deaths were from Flu. Some were from Lockdowns. But a significant number of those deaths were FROM (not with) COVID. We can argue whether it was really 900k or 700k, but it strains credibility to say it wasn't a huge number of excess death.

            (And of course, we should always keep in mind that a total of nearly 6 Million people died total in the US during that time.)

            1. 40% spike in non covid deaths in 2021

            2. Keep in mind that millions of people haven't been going to the hospital when they otherwise would, or have been asked to come back later because the hospital is busy. I'm sure that has had an impact on total deaths.

              1. Yes that is what I meant by "some number of these deaths are due to lockdown" or regular flu. But its difficult to look at that graphic and not conclude that somewhere between 600,000 and 900,000 americans have died FROM COVID.

    4. Brandybuck's friends and family are a bunch of sheltered, codependent, passive-aggressive neurotics who lack critical thinking skills.
      Least surprising reveal of the day.

    5. "You may feel that you yourself are safe, and maybe you are, but you can still transmit it to others. That's how diseases work. They transmit to other people. I'm not saying we need a mandate, I'm saying don't impose your risk on other people. This anti-vaxx nonsense needs to stop. The joke has gone on too long."

      When you do this, I don't know if you intend to, you imply that vaccination will stop you from spreading the disease. And that is just absolutely wrong.

      I just overcame a bout of COVID, and it was given to me by a person who was fully vaccinated, and boostered. And he gave it to me because his itchy throat was lighter than allergies he regularly has. The next day he tested getting ready to travel, and came up positive. By then he had infected his entire family.

      This notion that vaccination will stop the spread of COVID is not only wrong, it is unnecessarily divisive. It focuses people on some holy war about sticking needles in their arms, rather than dealing with the reality that vaccination will protect you from harm if you are at risk. It is also creating this absurd situation where leaders think forcing children- at zero risk from covid- to vaccinate is good policy.

    6. Fuck that. It's not stupidity if you understand the risks and benefits and make your decision.

      And to me, the fact that so many want to force it on everyone is enough reason to refuse. Use your rights or lose them. If a person judges that taking a stand against public health authoritarianism is more important, that is not "stupid".

  8. They seem to be keeping liability and PR in mind, with little eye toward giving their paying customers the once-in-a-lifetime quality experience they advertised.

    Except you have the relationship wrong. Students aren’t the paying customers. Or at least those individuals who do pay are not a university’s primary customs base. Government is, and it’s getting exactly what it pays universities for.

    1. If you're unvaccinated, stop being stupid. You may feel that you yourself are safe, and maybe you are, but you can still transmit it to others.

      Vaccines do not stop transmission, dumbass.

      1. Motherfucker.

        Meant @Brandyretard above

      2. Vaccines might. Probably would. But we don’t have vaccines.

  9. If you're unvaccinated, stop being stupid. You may feel that you yourself are safe, and maybe you are, but you can still transmit it to others.

    Vaccines do not stop transmission, dumbass.

    1. Truth.

      My vaccinated wife passed it on.

      1. "My wife survived a car wreck, therefore, car wrecks aren't dangerous". That type of thinking is ultimately a fallacy.

        1. Better analogy: My wife didn't have her seatbelt on, and got flung through the windshield and survived. Therefore don't wear seatbelts.

          I'm old enough to remember when this was actually an argument against seatbelts. Yes, I'm that old.

          1. Your analogy is retarded.

            If you were actually interested in making analogies that make sense, the analogy would be:

            "My wife wore her seatbelt, but it didn't work because a passenger in another car didn't wear theirs."

            And that analogy is retarded too, but that it what you would be logically constrained to argue because your entire comparison makes absolutely no sense.

            Of course, you know all this, but you are a lying shitweasel, just like Jeff.

            1. Brandybuck once got sunburned, so every day he/him now waits by the mailbox to tell the black mailman to wear sunscreen.

          2. Except your are talking about odds for non old people of .002% where as the seatbelt is in another risk analysis zone. Btw it's still your choice on either.

            1. Shitweasel knows exactly what he is doing: lying through his teeth and hoping people do not notice.

              His first mistake is thinking people here do not know he is a lying shitweasel (they do).

              His second mistake is thinking everyone else posting here is just as stupid as he is (they are not).

              His third mistake is not killing himself immediately, but that is more a matter of opinion than anything else.

              1. Brandybuck or collectivistjeff?
                Your statement is true of both. Especially that last sentence.

                1. Add in sarc and Mike.

          3. Both are retarded analogies since both of your analogies regarded individual analysis. In either case did your wife's seat belt wearing protect someone else?

        2. "My wife survived a car wreck, therefore, car wrecks aren't dangerous". That type of thinking is ultimately a fallacy.

          The fallacy is comparing the risk of viral transmission from person to person to a car accident.

          Woodchipper's point was not that his wife "survived" COVID, but that she (1) contracted it and (2) transmitted it.

          But you know all that, and your response was just another example of you being a lying shitweasel.

        3. But it's true. And given how many infections we are seeing among vaccinated people and how many are vaccinated, vaccinated people are clearly responsible for a large proportion of transmission. And that was true even before Omicron, which is far less affected by the vaccines.

    2. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveytechnicalarticleimpactofvaccinationontestingpositiveintheuk/october2021

      Vaccination significantly reduced the risk of people testing positive during both the Alpha-dominant period and the Delta-dominant period.

      Vaccine effectiveness was reduced in the Delta-dominant period compared with the Alpha-dominant period, particularly in preventing infections with symptoms.

      Two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines provided a similar level of protection to prior natural infection when the Delta variant was dominant.

      Two doses of either vaccine provided significantly greater protection than one dose across all analyses.

      1. Anything that isn't 100% effective is 0% effective.

        1. What do you call a boat that leaks 1% of the time? Sinking.

          1. "A boat that leaks 1% of the time is exactly equivalent to the Titanic."

          2. Unless someone is bailing.

            If the vaccines leaked 1% of the time (or probably even 10 or 20%), we'd be in great shape.

            1. I still do not understand what "reduced" transmission means, because proponents of theory have never cited any numbers, or even a baseline for transmission against which any reduction can even be measured.

              It's complete guesswork.

              1. It's shibboleth.
                Pure faith.
                Makes logical sense, but there's a logical case the other way too.
                What we do KNOW is that infections, hospitalizations, covid deaths, and all cause mortality have increased since mass covid vaccination started.

        2. I bet these people don't wear condoms either.

          "But honey, condoms aren't 100% effective, so they do nothing at all. Let me ride bareback and trust me you won't get pregnant!"

          1. Does your condom not work if I don't wear mine?

            1. The condom doesn’t matter if one is not having sex. People not infected cannot transmit covid.

              1. But they might have sex at some point, so you should lobby them to wear condoms at all times!
                They're really acting like the Southpark kids in the sex education episode, in which the teacher terrorized all the girls by telling them they'd get STDs, so the girls wouldn't let any boys near them unless they were wearing condoms.
                Was a good, and funny, example of children's logic.

          2. If the vaccines were as effective as condoms, then you would have a much better point. But they are clearly very far from that level.

            If condoms were as effective as the vaccines, they would not be considered effective birth control. You want to compare vaccines to birth control methods, it seems like they are somewhere between a promise to pull out and the rhythm method.

            1. Better comparison is vaccines to rhythm method.

      2. Faith Alone!

      3. But Alpha and Delta variants are no longer prevalent, and the vaccines are NOT effective for reducing the spread of Omicron.

    3. Here is a Scientific American article that is actually sympathetic to your team.

      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-risk-of-vaccinated-covid-transmission-is-not-low/

      And even this article admits that vaccination reduces the probability of transmission.

      1. Right.

        Vaccines do not stop transmission.

        Thank you for playing.

        1. You lie by omission when you frame the discussion in black/white terms when the more truthful way to discuss vaccination and transmission would be as I have done, to state that vaccination reduces, but does not completely stop, transmission of the virus.

          1. Given that vaccination reduces asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2,2,3 it is plausible that vaccination reduces transmission; however, data from clinical trials and observational studies are lacking.

            From: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2106757

            That is a direct quote from the link you posted. I'm just going to leave it here to marinate.

            Not only are you a liar, you then lie about lying, when everybody can see that your initial position is contradicted by the very studies you are citing in support of it.

            1. See, this is what your team tries to do. Use the tentative nature of science as a weapon against it. That study was not a clinical trial. That study was not an observational study. That study was a statistical study comparing household transmission between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. And because they are practicing science in the correct way, they state that. They state their results but leave open the possibility that future results might contradict the current ones. Your team then seizes on that doubt and uses it to generate false narratives of vaccine ineffectiveness. Because you are dishonestly pushing a narrative that will ultimately lead to people unnecessarily getting sick, and potentially dying, from this virus, because they were unvaccinated, because they believe the lies that you tell them. It's disgusting and wrong what you are doing. You are deliberately trying to get people sick. Stop it.

              1. Normally I'd say don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity, but in GG's case I'd have to go with both.

                1. You codependent dimwits are funny.

                  1. Your foil hat is even funnier.

                2. Your daughter is going to kill you in your sleep, and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

              2. See, this is what your team tries to do. Use the tentative nature of science as a weapon against it. That study was not a clinical trial. That study was not an observational study. That study was a statistical study comparing household transmission between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. And because they are practicing science in the correct way, they state that.

                But, see, you were the one who made the unconditional statement that vaccines reduce transmission --- and then you cited to the study.

                But the authors of the study admit they have no data to support the contention that the vaccines prevent transmission.

                It is not a "weapon against science" to shove the science you cited down your fucking throat.

                The science you cited, quite simply, does not say what you said it says. It is that simple.

                You are not only lying about "the science," you are also lying about yourself lying, while knowing without a hint of a doubt that you are lying and that the very study you cited does not support your position.

                You are using the absence of evidence as proof of a positive conclusion.

                In sum, go fuck yourself.

                1. But, see, you were the one who made the unconditional statement that vaccines reduce transmission --- and then you cited to the study.

                  They do, in a statistical sense.

                  But the authors of the study admit they have no data to support the contention that the vaccines prevent transmission.

                  That is not what the study says. Here, let me explain it for you.

                  That study is a statistical study that compared household transmission of the virus between vaccinated and unvaccinated members in households. It found that vaccinated members reduced the transmission to unvaccinated members, compared to unvaccinated to unvaccinated.

                  The study was NOT an observational study, and it was NOT a clinical study.

                  So in their conclusion, they stated that while their results do show that the vaccine reduces transmission, OTHER studies might show a different result, such as observational studies or clinical studies. That is, they are treating their results tentatively and with caution. That is how good science is done.

                  You, being an idiot with an agenda, ignores all that and wants to pretend that this study says something other than what it says. Because you are not interested in discovering truth (the ultimate object of science), you are only interested in finding rationalizations for your agenda. And if you can rationalize your agenda by distorting the science, you'll do it.

                  So, learn how to read scientific papers.

                  1. So in their conclusion, they stated that while their results do show that the vaccine reduces transmission, OTHER studies might show a different result, such as observational studies or clinical studies.

                    I can't help you if you can't read.

                    "But the authors of the study admit they have no data to support the contention that the vaccines prevent transmission."

                    What do you call it when somebody has no data to support their conclusion?

                    Hint: The answer isn't "science" you ignorant waste of life.

                    1. This is what the study showed:

                      Cases of Covid-19 were less common among household members of vaccinated health care workers during the period beginning 14 days after the first dose than during the unvaccinated period before the first dose (event rate per 100 person-years, 9.40 before the first dose and 5.93 beginning 14 days after the first dose). After the health care worker’s second dose, the rate in household members was lower still (2.98 cases per 100 person-years).

                      That is not "no data". I've explained it to you three times now. You refuse to see because you are an idiot with an agenda.

                    2. "But the authors of the study admit they have no data to support the contention that the vaccines prevent transmission."

                      Do you understand what "no data" means?

                    3. It isn't hard Jeff.

                      They have a hypothesis, and that is it.

                      I have a hypothesis too. My hypothesis is that the vaccine does not prevent transmission.

                      Guess what?

                      And I have more data to support my hypothesis, like the fact that everyone is catching COVID.

                    4. "But the authors of the study admit they have no data to support the contention that the vaccines prevent transmission."

                      This statement is false. I posted the data. Here it is, one more time:

                      Cases of Covid-19 were less common among household members of vaccinated health care workers during the period beginning 14 days after the first dose than during the unvaccinated period before the first dose (event rate per 100 person-years, 9.40 before the first dose and 5.93 beginning 14 days after the first dose). After the health care worker’s second dose, the rate in household members was lower still (2.98 cases per 100 person-years).

                    5. "the fact that everyone is catching COVID."

                      That's some rigorous scienciness, right there! "I use anecdotes to form sweeping conclusions!"

                    6. Given that vaccination reduces asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2,2,3 it is plausible that vaccination reduces transmission; however, data from clinical trials and observational studies are lacking.

                      "Plausible" is not the same "proof."

                      They are guessing. They have no fucking idea, Jeff. And neither do you.

                    7. No, they are not "guessing". They are expressing their conclusions in the language of the tentative nature of science. Which you and your ilk weaponize to spread doubt and intentionally see to it that more people get sick.

                    8. They are expressing their conclusions ...

                      ... without qualifying evidence.

                      They are citing to loose correlations, admitting that they actually do not understand the mechanism, if any, by which vaccines reduce transmission, and you are taking their uncertainty as a signal that one can be perfectly certain that vaccines reduce transmission.

                      Why? Because you are all full of shit. You drew an unwarranted conclusion, and now you are trying to play semantic games to pretend like the uncertainty of the study actually supports your absolute certainty in the conclusion.

                      Get the fuck out.

                    9. But GG, the models they built off their assumptions are far better than real and measured data!

                  2. Jeff please plot 2 curves using a growth model. Does anything besides 0% ever stop the growth?

                    How fucking dumb are you?

              3. Lol. You chose the scientific source. He just actually read it.

                You are the one stating vaccines stop infections when at best they cause maybe a slight delay of the spread. Remember 2 weeks to stop the spread from lockdowns? How did that work?

                You people are fucking logically illiterate.

                1. I tried to give him so many analogous examples -- like retard level examples, too.

                  "Jumping into a volcano with sunscreen to prevent burns"
                  "Driving into the Grand Canyon while wearing your seat belt"
                  "Salting your driveway in Antarctica"

                  I got nothing but blank stares in return.

          2. "You lie by omission when you frame the discussion in black/white terms when the more truthful way to discuss vaccination and transmission would be as I have done, to state that vaccination reduces, but does not completely stop, transmission of the virus."

            It is not lying by omission, Chemjeff. If the Vaccine doesn't STOP transmission, then claiming that "getting the jab protects your loved ones" is incorrect. The only way that is true is if sufficient vaccination in the population would choke off and stop the virus. We know, based on Israel and other high-vaccinated populations, that the vaccinations do not stop the spread of the disease. Full Stop. That isn't black and white thinking, it is a specific fact that is important to know.

            That isn't to say it is the ONLY important fact to know about vaccinations, of course.

      2. I don't think anyone (or many at least) here are claiming that the vaccines have zero effect on transmission. Just that there is not enough effect to justify being worried about whether other people are or not.

        1. That is the problem. This entire conversation about transmissibility is taking place in the absence of any reliable data.

          Meanwhile, millions are coming down with COVID, vaccinated and unvaccinated. Vaccinated people are clearly infecting others, which means the entire foundation for lockdowns, mandates, passports, etc. falls apart. This, in my view, is the only reason there is any debate still ongoing -- because the government wants control, and their excuse to exercise that control has been annihilated.

          1. Yeah, pretty much. Way too many people want it, though.

  10. The small college I at which I teach was among the first in the nation to return to in-person classes. After one semester with a mask mandate, they were made optional at the discretion of the instructor. There is no vaccine mandate, though they are offered and encouraged. Our students are a pretty conscientious sort, so they tend to watch out for one another's health, although there is VERY little masking going on.

    There is a spike in cases after each break, which subsides to a handful (fewer than 10) cases ongoing at any time in the semester.

    While many other colleges are receding, we are experiencing the largest student enrollment in our history.

    1. "There is a spike in cases after each break, which subsides to a handful (fewer than 10) cases ongoing at any time in the semester."

      So they go elsewhere, catch the virus and nothing happens.

      Good.

  11. Can we dispense with the myth now that the anti-COVID-vaccine crowd simply wants people to choose for themselves? They have moved on now to spreading lies about the vaccine in order to actively discourage people from getting vaccinated. The belief is that if more people falsely believe the vaccine is more dangerous than it really is, they will be more adamant in rejecting vaccine mandates.

    So in order to try to stop the mandates, they have given up trying to argue against the mandate, and have instead gone to the strategy of trying to get more people sick from COVID because they are unvaccinated, because they believe lies about the vaccine. It really is disgusting how far this anti-vaccine campaign has fallen.

    And for the record I am opposed to government vaccine mandates. But I am also opposed to lying to people about the vaccine. People should make their own free and *fully informed* choices. An environment where people make choices surrounded by lies and myths is not an environment conducive to free choices.

    1. I read Berenson regularly. It's an amazing mix of legitimate skepticism, good information not being covered by the MSM, and flat out data misrepresentations.

    2. The fact that the vaccine does not stop transmission, is sufficient. That is not a "lie" or a "myth." The vaccine does not stop transmission. The vaccine may reduce illness for a particular person, and that is it. The notion that anybody has a responsibility to get vaccinated in order to forestall harm to others is the lie.

      1. And it's hilarious that the CDC admitted this in early August, long before Omi, but the lemmings still won't admit it.

      2. "The notion that anybody has a responsibility to get vaccinated in order to forestall harm to others is the lie."

        B...b.b. bbb..bb ut that shows you dont...

        CARE!!

        That Virtue cant Signal itself!

    3. > Can we dispense with the myth now that the anti-COVID-vaccine crowd simply wants people to choose for themselves?

      > And for the record I am opposed to government vaccine mandates.

      So...would you say that you "simply want people to choose for themselves"? Obviously, there are people who believe/say very odd things about the vaccine in the anti-mandate crowd. And there are people, like you, who think the vaccine is good but should be a free choice. The former don't turn the latter into a "myth". We don't do collectivism here*. Every person/position should be evaluated on its own merit and not whether there is a correlation with other actions or beliefs.

      * Yes, I am being a little silly here by making a collective assertion. Though it is hard to see how libertarianism and collectivism are compatible beliefs.

      1. Jeff is lying about not supporting mandates. Yes, he has to say it to appear to moderate. But then he spends his time calling anyone expressing even the slightest bit of hesitancy or skepticism a fanatical anti-vaxxer that deserves to be shooed out of polite society. He then posts drivel links that contradict his own assertions, see above, and disappears, only to repeat the process in countless other threads with the hope that people do not have the bandwidth to keep track of his bullshit.

        1. "But then he spends his time calling anyone expressing even the slightest bit of hesitancy or skepticism a fanatical anti-vaxxer that deserves to be shooed out of polite society."

          Or he says that your objection is just plain overwrought because you are too emotionally invested in the issue. For him it is always emotion.

    4. You are way overgeneralizing. There is a large and very diverse group opposing mandatory and "strongly suggested" vaccinations. There isn't any kind of united "anti-vaccine growd".

      I'm all for fully informed people. Let's start listing the risks and side effects for it when it is being promoted or advertised like we do with all other pharmaceuticals. Let's be open and upfront about what we do and don't know (for example, we don't know the long term effects, especially of repeated boosters).
      And lets stop considering being sick and exhausted for a few days (which seems to be pretty common with the vaccines) a minor side effect. And glossing over the actually disturbing numbers of serious side effects in young people, especially boys.

      1. In Jeff's mind, question vaccine efficacy is synonymous with being a Trump supporter. He cannot separate the two. If someone has a question about the vaccine, they are Trump dick sucker by definition.

        Jeff does not give a shit about the vaccine, he just wants to skewer people that he thinks support Trump and has finally found a way to do so under the cover of something else.

        Replace vaccines with anything. Take mouthwash. If Jeff believed Trump supporters, as a bloc, had questions about the efficacy of mouthwash, Jeff would be shitting up the threads shaming people for not using mouthwash. He would become the biggest mouthwash salesman overnight.

        Vaccines are just a proxy for his blind hatred for everyone he even remotely suspects is a Trump supporter.

        1. Jeff fully admits his goal is to force his moral decisions on others above. He lies about not wanting mandates.

    5. "Can we dispense with the myth now that the anti-COVID-vaccine crowd simply wants people to choose for themselves? They have moved on now to spreading lies about the vaccine in order to actively discourage people from getting vaccinated."

      Nobody here on this thread has spread lies, and you are being disingenuous to suggest it. Do they have a different interpretation of the data? Yes. But given that you cannot even muster a defense of YOUR interpretation of the data, it seems relatively absurd for you to accuse them of lying.

      "The belief is that if more people falsely believe the vaccine is more dangerous than it really is, they will be more adamant in rejecting vaccine mandates."

      This is a Strawman. Please show me a quote where someone states this is their belief.

      "So in order to try to stop the mandates, they have given up trying to argue against the mandate, and have instead gone to the strategy of trying to get more people sick from COVID because they are unvaccinated, because they believe lies about the vaccine."

      This is FUCKING HILARIOUS from you Chemjeff. Please, I invite you to cool down and read this dispassionately. Because when you do, I think you will quickly concede that you have let emotion rule the day for you here.

      You want to vilify people for not agreeing with you. You want to say they are lying and put words into their mouths about what they believe and what their strategy is. And yet, still, to this day you will say that I was "too wrapped up in emotion" about this whole thing.

      I have done nothing in this thread but attempt to reason with you, sarc, and Brandybuck. Rather than reason back, you unleash this absurd, emotional bitch fest. If you could have been even 1/10th as emotional about mandates in the first place maybe it would have gone some way towards improving things. But no, the only people you can get emotional about are the people you had vilified anyways, years ago.

      You can do better than this, Chemjeff.

  12. To be fair to the schools -- which I hate doing but in this case they deserve it -- they set up their vast superstructure of Covid protocols on the basis of earlier variants, not Omicron or any knowledge of it.

    They wrote down protocols that basically said "if we get x% students testing positive, we bail on in-person and send them all home." They had to follow through on their protocols. They had to at least do what they said they would do.

    They were dumb protocols to begin with, especially with a vaccination requirement in place. And with the benefit of hindsight and seeing how mild Omicron is, sending kids home is going to look colossally stupid.

    But in early December, no one really knew it was going to be super mild; Cornell et al only knew that test positives were going through the roof.

    1. Using unfounded assumptions without verification/ validation based on later measurments isnt science.

      Its just wild hysteria. Control- freakery.

      Fuck Joe Biden and his Pet Monkey Fauci.

    2. The schools had a year and roughly 1 Million dollars per school in the country to get beyond this protocol. My kids' schools have about 30% of their kids out with covid. 30. PERCENT. And they are still open for the healthy kids.

      Do not defend the schools for being incompetent.

  13. And massive protests in the Netherlands over draconian lockdowns.

    Vaccination rate: 70.2%

    You're never returning to normal until you rip normal back out of their cold, lifeless hands.

    1. I've been assured it's because we are following dangerous lies and aren't given the proper truth and this is best for us.

  14. Really surprised that the ethnic studies departments haven't come out against booster mandates given that boosting healthy college age students is diverting vaccine from the developing world, which still needs to give primary doses to many of its seniors. Every dose given to boost a kid/young adult would do at least 1,000 times as much good if exported. Where are the protests about inequity and privilege and all the other buzzwords that college campuses normally like to talk about?

    We can revisit over the summer when the world is awash in vaccines, but, for now, I consider every encouragement/mandate for a booster for healthy <65 year olds to be immoral, as it will lead to more death in the developing world.

    On a partially related note, issuing an EUA to boost kids is just bad governance (yes, Libertarian magazine, it is all bad, but I mean even by their own standards). The CDC doesn't publish the number of pediatric deaths from breakthrough cases of COVID. They do get a sampling a bunch of states, where it looks like they get a report of one death every week or so. Georgia does publish the number, and has seen 0 pediatric breakthrough COVID deaths thus far. BREAKTHROUGH COVID IS NOT AN EMERGENCY and especially not for kids. If we make cancer drugs go through the normal process, we darn well ought to make the booster go through the normal process.

    1. "departments haven't come out against booster mandates given that boosting healthy college age students is diverting vaccine from the developing world, which still needs to give primary doses to many of its seniors."

      They get paid to brainwash and control people here, not there.

      That just serves to reinforce the Us vs. Them paradigm, IOW, Marxism.

  15. how can we make money without doing our jobs?

    1. Become a unionized teacher. Or become gay and track down a Christian bakery.

      1. have had thoughts of identifying as gay unionized teacher in search of cake. college administrator on the list too.

  16. "Follow the science (unless I have to go to work)".

  17. I'm glad to see this getting attention.

    Fauci led a coordinated media campaign to discredit the highly credible epidemiologists who signed the GBD.

    'There needs to be a quick and devastating take down': Emails show how Fauci and head of NIH worked to discredit three experts who penned the Great Barrington Declaration which called for an end to lockdowns
    The emails show Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins attempting to coordinate a 'devastating takedown' of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD)
    AIER, a libertarian think tank, sponsored the GBD, which largely abandons lockdowns in favor of herd immunity strategy that allows life to return to normal
    In an October 8 email from Collins to Fauci, the head of the NIH calls the GBD the work of 'three fringe epidemiologists' that 'seems to be getting a lot of attention'
    Collins adds that 'there needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises. I don't see anything like that online yet - is it underway?'
    Fauci later sends Collins multiple op-eds trashing the GBD in Wired and The Nation Magazine
    Dr. Jay Bhattacharya - one of the authors and a DailyMail.com contributor - tweeted that he was the subject of a propaganda attack by his own government

    FYI, Wired "science reporter" played a part in this. Why anyone ever took that pathetic rag seriously I'll never know.

    1. "...'three fringe epidemiologists'..."

      He didn't read it, he just figured that the epidemiologists had last names beginning with G, B and D. None of his friends do, so they must be "fringe".

  18. Today in libertarian commentary.

    The demonisation of Novak Djokovic
    The Aussie fury against the unvaccinated tennis star is really getting out of hand.

    Not for the first time in the pandemic, Australia has lost its mind. After firing rubber bullets at protesters, killing rescue dogs and instructing people to wear masks outside while drinking in an effort to keep Covid at bay, the fanatical Aussie authorities have now sparked a full-blown diplomatic incident after detaining the world’s greatest men’s tennis player at the border for the crime of being unvaccinated.

    1. Jeff believes that Australia is the model we should aspire to when redrafting our Constitution, for the record.

      1. Not what I said.
        Man you must be very angry with me for showing you up, because you have turned into a Jesse and now just attack me nonstop.

        1. That's because he and JesseAZ and R Mac and Mother's Lament all believe that ad hominems are logical arguments. Attack the person to discredit what they say. Lie about them and what they said to make them look bad. Continually attack so that their arguments are lost in a sea of insults. In other words they've adopted the tactics of the far left.

          1. Ideas!

          2. Lol. Did you read your posts above dumbass?

            It is amazing how big of hypocrites the liberals on this site are.

          1. What I said:

            I do not think there is anything wrong with exploring a more parliamentary-style system.

            We have examples that blend federalist and parliamentary systems together. Germany and Australia and Canada come to mind. They are not banana republics or shithole countries. Parliamentary systems have the advantage of giving voice to a wider spectrum of thought beyond the stale two-party garbage.

            What you claimed I said:

            Jeff believes that Australia is the model we should aspire to when redrafting our Constitution, for the record.

            Intelligent readers of good faith will understand the key difference between what I said and what you claimed I said.

            Idiots with agendas, such as yourself and the Jesses out there, will have a difficult time with this. That is your problem, not mine.

            1. What's the difference Jeff?

              1. I see you are still having a difficult time with discerning the difference.

                1. That's why I asked.

                  What's the difference, Jeff?

                  1. It's right there above. Try to find the difference. I know you can, if you try.

                    1. Can't explain it it, can you? That's because there is no difference.

                    2. LOL

                      Collectivistjeff has reached the limit of its programming, and is once again stuck in a loop

                    3. GG doesn't argue in good faith. He intentionally distorts what someone says and then calls them a liar when they try to clarify. Like JesseAZ there is no point in responding to him. He has no interest in understanding what the other person says. He's just trying to score points and impress his buddies. So rather than respond to his posts, it's better to let them dangle like the dingleberries they are.

                    4. Oh I can. It's just sad that you can't. As I wrote:

                      Idiots with agendas, such as yourself and the Jesses out there, will have a difficult time with this. That is your problem, not mine.

                    5. GG doesn't argue in good faith.

                      Says the asshole who admitted his entire purpose of posting is to troll people ...

                    6. Oh I can.

                      Then do it.

                      There's is a reason you are dodging the issue and that is because you understand full well that Australia is an authoritarian shithole right now and you cannot be seen expressly endorsing that kind of government -- even though you full support that kind of government.

                      Everybody sees your game, dumbass.

                    7. I don't need to prove my intellect to you or anyone else.

                      Maybe you should prove that you have an IQ above room temperature by explaining the difference between what I wrote, and what you claim I wrote.

                    8. I don't need to prove my intellect to you or anyone else.

                      In my experience when someone calls you stupid it's because they're too stupid to understand what you're saying. So they say you're the stupid one. What they're really saying is that you're too smart for them and the only way they can compete is to call you names and if in person threaten violence.

                    9. I don't need to prove my intellect to you or anyone else.

                      You are an authoritarian. How do I know? Because you suggested that Australia is something we should look emulate in terms of amending our Constitution. Australia is presently in the throes of a descent into full dictatorship, due in large part to the structure of its government. By suggesting we look to Australia as a model of governance, you endorsed its authoritarianism.

                      The fact that you refuse to simply say "no" to all of this, is telling. It isn't about your IQ, it is about the fact that you are a liar.

                    10. So you can't see the difference. Pity.

                    11. So you can't see the difference. Pity.

                      Why can't you just say it?

                      "I do not support the authoritarianism currently on display in Australia under the guise of combating the spread of COVID-19, and I do not want anything like that happening in the United States."

                      Is that really so hard? Because it seems to me that would only be hard if you didn't believe it.

                    12. Your statement is too vague.

                      And I give up. I can't help those who refuse to get help.

                      Welcome to the ignore list.

                    13. Sarc claims about arguing in good faith as he claims I'm muted but also creates strawman daily about what my posts say. Despite everyone else not having me muted and seeing how full of shit sarcasmic is.

                    14. Sarc admits he has a lot of experience in people calling him stupid. But he doesn't agree because he thinks "ibknownyou are but what am I" is a logical argument.

                    15. Your statement is too vague.

                      Asshole authoritarian finds statement denouncing authoritarianism to be "too vague."

                      Surprise, surprise.

                    16. La la la, I can't read what you write anymore, la la la

                      So whatever insults or lies you just posted, I really don't give a flip

                      I see that Jesse decided to chime in and gang up on me. I guess that makes GG another member of the Mean Grrlz crowd. Congratulations, I guess.

                    17. La la la, I can't read what you write anymore, la la la

                      Chemjeff just went full sarcasmic LOL

                      Broken.

            2. I've thought about that myself. In a parliamentary system the Libertarian Party might actually get some traction. In our winner-take-all duopoly there is zero chance of third parties influencing government.

              1. It couldn't be because the Libertarian party platform is a bunch of incoherent minarchism sprinkled over with some social justice bullshit, could it?

                1. Weird that he simply wants "some action" despite that already occurring the party he constantly attacks.

                  I dont think he knows how parliamentary processes work.

                  2 members in the gop is the same as 2 members in a coalition party.

      1. broke down in 4 days...

        And now the Cupcakes come pre- broken -down...

  19. And today you have those smarts SCOTUS ladies Sotomayor and Kagan along with Breyer just stating being vaccinated means you can't transmit it

    1. Am assuming FaceBook and Twitter are now blocking their accounts.

    2. to deny this is STRAIGHT UP LYING. Just ask Chemjeff.

  20. I can't believe kids are signing up to pay a shit ton to be treated like this. The college selection bias appears more and more to be obedience instead of intelligence.

    1. It's been that way for (at least) 2 decades.

    2. that was the 70's

  21. Let me see if I have the logic right:

    1. The unvaccinated are idiots!
    2. Yes, the vaccinated can still transmit and catch the disease, but at a slightly lower rate... or something.
    3. The vaccinated may catch the disease, but it rounds the sharp corners of the disease off so you don't suffer as badly.
    4. The unvaccinated are selfish because they infect other people!
    5. If an unvaccinated infects the vaccinated, the vaccinated person is well protected from the disease.
    6. If an unvaccinated person infects an unvaccinated person, it could kill the unvaccinated person!
    7. Only idiots are in danger from other idiots.

    1. Brandybuck, Tony, Jeff, Sarc, SQRSLY in a nutshell.

      Well done.

    2. "If my initial premise is true, then all my premeses are correct because I string them together."

  22. Oh, I was also informed by a reliable establishment hack that the unvaccinated are "variant factories". Because the Omicron variant is pretty much a common cold, can we thank the unvaccinated for bringing this new, safer variant along, whereas without them we'd be stuck with the far more dangerous Delta Burke variant which had a 947% kill rate?

  23. Today in libertarian news and commentary:

    The hell of ‘Zero Covid’
    China shows just how dangerous public-health fanaticism can become.

    Imagine a nation in such a state of distress that its citizens were reduced to bartering for food. A nation where women were so desperate for something to cook and eat that they started swapping sanitary towels for vegetables. A nation where families were so hungry that they would trade their cigarettes for a cabbage. This country actually exists. And it isn’t one of the poor, sometimes famished nations of the global South. It’s China. More accurately, it’s China under the policy of ‘Zero Covid’. If you want to witness the hell of Zero Covid, the dystopian derangement of subordinating every facet of life to the crusade against coronavirus, look no further than the country where this virus first emerged.

    The bartering for grub and other basic supplies is taking place in the city of Xi’an in north-west China right now. There has been a spike in community Covid infections in Xi’an and the authorities have responded with ferocious authoritarianism. Thirteen million people have been confined to their homes since 23 December. Initially they were allowed out once every two days to buy food, but even that infinitesimal scrap of liberty was done away with on 27 December. Since then, the people of Xi’an have been under literal house arrest. They are not permitted to leave their place of residence for any reason, not even to buy food. Yes, for the past nine days 13million people have been locked in their own homes; if they take so much as a step outside, they risk arrest.

    1. China's zero tolerance totalitarian lockdowns (to halt the spread of covid) are likely to come back to bite them, which may become clear during the Olympics.

      Australia's zero tolerance totalitarian policies are also coming back to haunt them, as covid cases are now skyrocketing (and virtually no natural immunity exists in Australia, or China),

      1. Yeah, all Australia will have accomplished is to have delayed their epidemic for a while.
        Unless someone comes up with a vaccine that actually works.

        1. Define "works." If "works" means that people who take it have better outcomes than people who don't, I'd say that qualifies as works. If "works" means people who take it are completely immune then no it doesn't work. But that's making the perfect the enemy of the good.

          1. "If by whiskey ..."

          2. I mean "stops most people from getting infected or spreading the virus". Works in such a way that it could allow Australia to avoid having any further major outbreaks. I'm not saying these are completely useless. But they don't work by the same standards most vaccines are considered to work.

          3. How often are you going to vaccinated between do it to help others and do it to help yourself?

        2. "Yeah, all Australia will have accomplished is to have delayed their epidemic for a while. Unless someone comes up with a vaccine that actually works."

          This line of argumentation is fraught with peril. It is at least possible that by rendering its populace to chattel, Australia actually saved them from a significant amount of COVID death. If the variant of COVID that eventually ravages the nation is as benign as Omicron, or Omicron 2.5, then the deaths will be much lower than in other countries.

          This is a distraction, and is why it is such a bad idea to try and make these pragmatist, outcome based arguments. What Australia did is an affront to liberty. People claiming that the "success metric" is lives saved are an affront to liberty. And engaging them on this battlefield ("oh, your death rates will come soon enough") is at best a meaningless victory, and at worst a blundering defeat. Full stop: what australia is doing is wrong, no matter how many lives they purport to save. I could save a shit ton of lives by arresting every male in Chicago- it would reduce our murder rate in the country by double digit percent. That doesn't mean it is right.

    2. "...They are not permitted to leave their place of residence for any reason, not even to buy food. Yes, for the past nine days 13million people have been locked in their own homes; if they take so much as a step outside, they risk arrest."

      It's been written that in the late '90s in NK, the only legal option was starvation; any attempt to avoid that was illegal.

    3. They need a January 6 moment.

  24. As the young people say... 'cause these vaccines are effective AF':

    FDA shortens timing of Moderna booster to 5 months

    WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. regulators on Friday shortened the time that people who received Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine have to wait for a booster — to five months rather than six.

    The two-dose Moderna vaccine is open to Americans 18 and older. The Food and Drug Administration’s decision Friday means Moderna recipients are eligible for a booster after at least five months have passed since their last shot. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention agreed.

    That’s in line with new recommendations for recipients of the Pfizer vaccine. Initial Pfizer vaccinations are open to anyone 5 or older. But only Pfizer recipients 12 and older are eligible for boosters, and earlier this week U.S. health authorities said they can get one five months after their last shot.

    In a statement, FDA vaccine chief Dr. Peter Marks called vaccination “our best defense against COVID-19” and said a shortened wait for a booster may help as the country battles a surge of the highly contagious omicron variant.

    A booster after receiving the single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine already is urged two months later.

    1. After Biden mandated vaccines, and after the media propagandists scared everyone about impending doom of omicron, the daily number of covid vaccines given to Americans sharply declined during the month of December (from 1.8 million doses per day down to 1.1 million doses).
      https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/01/28/960901166/how-is-the-covid-19-vaccination-campaign-going-in-your-state

      Looks like Biden's vaccine mandate has been discouraging Americans from getting booster shots.

  25. This entire kerfuffle has not been about the disease in quite some time, like at least a year.
    We have a new class of tin-pot-dictator wannabes who find their new-found power to boss people around quite satisfying, especially since they are above the 'law'.

  26. What is it that they hope to accomplish with these unscientific measures? What do they hope to accomplish?

  27. Many arguments made by US attorneys in defense of Biden's totalitarian vaccine mandate were deceitful, as they greatly exaggerated the risks of covid, claimed the federal government had an absolute right to impose any rules it believed might protect public, claimed workers and citizens supported Biden's mandate, and expressed zero concern for the rights of Americans.

    Justices Breyer and Kagan did the same.

    Oral arguments have concluded, and I'll be shocked if SCOTUS upholds Biden's unscientific, totalitarian, discriminatory and counterproductive vaccine mandate.

    1. The Leftists are trying to tie it to Public risk.

      Last time I checked, OSHA is not a Public regulatory group.

      This is just Biden pissing his Depends bc his EO failed to create Public Law, and then trying an end run around it with OSHA.

    2. I certainly hope you are right. There is certainly no legal basis for it.

  28. COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — Governors took sweeping actions during earlier surges of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many closed schools and ordered businesses shut down. They issued mask mandates, vaccine requirements and even quarantines in some places for people who had traveled to out-of-state hot spots.

    Not this time, even as the exponential spread of the super-contagious omicron variant shatters COVID-19 infection records. While governors are sending help to hospitals, they are displaying little appetite for widespread public orders or shutdowns.

    Even Democratic governors who passed strict mandates early on are now relying more on persuasion than dictates. They largely are leaving it up to local officials to make the tough calls on decisions such as whether to limit capacity in restaurants and theaters or keep schools open.

    Because they know that the people are ready to rip "normal" from their cold, dead hands if need be.

    1. Newsom and Breed (SF mayor) didn't get the memo.
      We should have been rioting in the streets March of 2020.

    2. Class Action suits must be in the works.

      Apparently its happened in Australia.

  29. These are the people justifying lockdowns and mandates.

    Sotomayor Falsely Claims 100,000 Children in ‘Serious Condition’ from Covid

    Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor falsely claimed that 100,00 children are in “serious condition” from Covid during oral arguments on the Biden administration’s employer vaccine mandate on Friday.

    “We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators. We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators,” Sotomayor claimed.

    The current number of confirmed pediatric hospitalizations in the U.S. is 3,342, according to data from the Department of Health and Human Services released on Friday. The average number of children admitted to the hospital per day with Covid was 776 as of Tuesday, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    It's time to take back "normal" by force.

    1. Welcome to the party

    2. Of course I'll take medical advice from a lefty shit SC justice!

    3. Our of curiosity, did any of our esteemed “Fact Check” websites call her out on this? Like, oh say…… POLITFACT (!!!!!!!) ?

  30. https://twitter.com/Covid19Crusher/status/1478429951477039108?t=bvdJWLvZuTfeoTyOl0qp6w&s=19

    Probably one of the best indicators of how well a country has performed against the pandemic since the start:

    excess all-cause mortality per capita
    [Graph]

    1. flagged by mistake

  31. https://twitter.com/akheriaty/status/1478987307910795267?t=2LetDbCiEsGH0cH9RoQ66w&s=19

    This is a huge story. Huge.

    All-cause mortality is skyrocketing to unheard-of levels.

    Nobody in authority wants to admit what is happening. Disastrous. [Link]

    1. Fuck with an economy and the most vulnerable will die. Public health is a cancer.

      1. Which is exactly what we were all screaming at the time.......

    2. My prediction was...the vax will damage immune systems and deaths will increase, esp. as they age.

      It clearly isnt imparting immunuty if 49 boosters are needed..

      As the number of vaxxed approaches 100% is is inescapable that the vax is CAUSING this.

    3. Link doesn't work.

      1. I just tried it. Worked for me. I use duckduckgo as my browser, don't know if that makes a difference.

    4. If you just make one unvaccinated person miss a cancer screening to protect a child from covid, sarc and Jeff would be happy.

  32. Just how exactly are these quarantines of college students enforced, if not at the pointy end of a gun? Granted it's been 25 years since I lived in a dorm at Purdue (which was mentioned in a nicely positive light in the story above), but if you wanted to leave your dorm at any point day or night, you pushed the door open and put one foot in front of the other. I can imagine any kind of nanny posted at the exits would've been met with a "fuck off" at best, and padlocking the doors would've seen approximately 1,600 students calling the fire marshal. And how exactly is the broader proscription against eating at off-campus establishments enforced? It pains me to think it, but I strongly suspect with today's snowflakes it's pretty much self-enforced ("The Authorities say I can't do it, so I won't).

    1. They can't prevent you from leaving. They can prevent you from coming back. Nobody wants to get expelled. Especially after their tuition check has been cashed.

      1. If everyone said "fuck this" and did what they want, it would all go away. Kids are such fucking pussies these days.

  33. Wow, This is a great and valuable article thanks for sharing this informative information. Thanks

    1. An old Jewish hypochondriac? Never.

    2. I Am Fully Un- Vaccinated

      And he can kiss my butt.

  34. Covid will run until those who are individually most susceptible are culled from the herd. This is the difficult truth of herd immunity.

    Same reason the seasonal influenza only kills 30 or 50 thousand per year, is that the herd is exposed to influenza every year, and those who have newly become the weak and vulnerable get removed at higher rate than the rest of the herd. Covid looks bad by comparison only because it has not been shaping the herd for generations. Covid is still on its first pass through the herd, so naturally there are many who have not met and passed the Covid challenge.

  35. Amazingly, the University of North Carolina School of public health decided to go entirely virtual a couple of weeks back, for the rest of the year.

    Is one thing if the women's studies department decides they are going to panic and go virtual. But this is the school of public health. These are the people who are training to make exactly these sorts of decisions. And they decided that a bunch of 21-year-old kids needed to be sequestered out of fear of a very contagious, but not terribly dangerous strain of covid that poses almost no danger to people in their age group.

    I am quite embarrassed for my alma mater. And it should give anyone pause who is hiring from one of these schools of public health, infectious disease departments, immunology departments, or departments of virology around the country that are shutting down to protect 20-year-old kids from a virus that is not harmful to 20-year-old kids.

    1. The schools are likely shutting down as this exercise in extreme 'public health' measures is curricular indoctrination for the next generation of public health workers.

    2. Something I have learned through this whole mess is how an awful lot of public health "experts" are frightened, timid germaphobes who spend their lives in fear. These are not the people we should listen to for sensible, society wide, advice on dealing with a moderately serious virus. And now they want everyone to be like that.

      1. When I was fresh out of school with a big head and small resume, everything made perfect fucking sense and I didn't understand why morons wouldn't just do what I wrote down for them to do.

        Public Health officials are the perfect storm here. THeir entire profession is shaving percentages and getting to 51%. They are very much like the Die Hard FBI agents- "30- 40% casualties? I can live with that!"

        It isn't that they are uncaring- I am sure they go home and kiss their kids goodnight like the rest of us. But when everything is numbers and abstract, it is hard to realize that by getting that extra 5% you still FAILED for 40% of the public.

    3. UNC?

      Wheres Prof Plumb?
      (pseodonym)
      I thought I read he killed himself?

  36. Education is the indoctrination system in the USA. My whole generation was turned into alcoholic narcissists by the college experience. It's happened to most of my best friends from childhood.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.